Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-24-2015, 07:07 AM   #61
Veteran Member
drypenn's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 948
Ken is actually good at picking up traffic and making us all laugh.

And oh wait, I almost forgot, he also "reviews" photography gears! (or at least he thinks he does)

07-24-2015, 07:59 AM   #62
Veteran Member
starbase218's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe
Posts: 1,110
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I think anyone who reads this review realizes that it isn't a review. It is a bag full of hyperbole and minimal information. Saying "Pentax stinks" or "Nikon stinks" is the sort of thing that maybe generates web clicks, but it certainly doesn't actually let you understand if a camera's strengths are important to you and its weaknesses are things you can live with. And that's exactly what you don't get from Rockwell.
To be honest, I haven't actually read through the whole review. So you may be right. OTOH it seems to me you might be just as biased, saying the K-3 focuses as fast as Canon/Nikon in AF-S, even though that seems not to be the case from the popphoto graphs.

Besides, I've actually shot a D700 with a 24-70/2.8 once, and it was something of a revelation compared to the K-5 (which is I what I used at the time). Instead of me having to wait for the camera to focus, the camera was already waiting for me (something the K-3 also isn't capable of). That was inside, but during the day, and I think there was a fair bit of light, since we were sitting at a visitors centre near a glacier in Iceland.

That actually does raise the question which lenses popphoto used, but ok. And it also raises another interesting question: if there are no fast-focusing lenses available for a camera body, does that make the camera body slow to focus? One could argue that that is the case.
07-24-2015, 08:31 AM   #63
Loyal Site Supporter
Fat Albert's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 960
QuoteOriginally posted by starbase218 Quote
...if there are no fast-focusing lenses available for a camera body, does that make the camera body slow to focus? One could argue that that is the case.
One cannot argue for an unprovable assertion and call it science. Metaphysics, maybe. But if the rate-limiting factor is glass, one can't say the body is slow if there's no glass to test that theory.
07-24-2015, 08:59 AM   #64
Veteran Member
starbase218's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe
Posts: 1,110
QuoteOriginally posted by Fat Albert Quote
One cannot argue for an unprovable assertion and call it science. Metaphysics, maybe. But if the rate-limiting factor is glass, one can't say the body is slow if there's no glass to test that theory.
But if there is no fast focusing glass available for a body, it's hardly relevant how fast the body can focus, right? I'm not talking science here, I'm talking end-result pragmatism.

OTOH things may be better with DC glass. I have no such glass, so I don't know.

07-24-2015, 09:18 AM   #65
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 117
I can understand why people may have a negative opinion of Ken Rockwell but I don't see any point in posting derogatory comments about him. I just ignore him unless somebody is quoting him to bolster their arguments or opinions.
07-24-2015, 12:34 PM   #66
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,018
QuoteOriginally posted by starbase218 Quote
To be honest, I haven't actually read through the whole review. So you may be right. OTOH it seems to me you might be just as biased, saying the K-3 focuses as fast as Canon/Nikon in AF-S, even though that seems not to be the case from the popphoto graphs.

Besides, I've actually shot a D700 with a 24-70/2.8 once, and it was something of a revelation compared to the K-5 (which is I what I used at the time). Instead of me having to wait for the camera to focus, the camera was already waiting for me (something the K-3 also isn't capable of). That was inside, but during the day, and I think there was a fair bit of light, since we were sitting at a visitors centre near a glacier in Iceland.

That actually does raise the question which lenses popphoto used, but ok. And it also raises another interesting question: if there are no fast-focusing lenses available for a camera body, does that make the camera body slow to focus? One could argue that that is the case.
Probably not a big deal if I am biased. I didn't write a review and yes, of course I am biased. I have used K5 II and K3 and my brother's D7100, but I certainly haven't used high end lenses with Nikon. I do feel like if you are going to post a review, you should have some information to back it up. A little less hyperbole would help on his part.

I don't run down other brand's cameras. It just doesn't do anything for me to run down Nikon, saying that I used my brother-in-law's D3200 and it felt really cheap and didn't focus fast. Nikon and Canon and Sony and Olympus do not make bad cameras, some are more limited than others and if you are planning on purchasing the top end lenses, you are probably best off going with Canon and Nikon at this point because they have a lot more options there. But that isn't what Rockwell said.
07-25-2015, 06:20 AM   #67
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Exeter, Devon
Posts: 136
QuoteOriginally posted by boriscleto Quote
Professionals are out shooting all day every day. They don't have time to update web pages all day everyday...like Ken says he does...
Sadly, a very busy pro probably only shoots 100 days a year ...
07-26-2015, 01:55 AM   #68
Senior Member
CypherOz's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 244
Rockwell is downright dangerous.
He misleads noobs and often writes 'reviews' based on nothing more than an opinion or hearsay without actually having the gear he reviews.

He is sort of honest about it in his site disclaimer..
QuoteQuote:
This website is my way of giving back to our community. It is a work of fiction, entirely the product of my own imagination. This website is my personal opinion. To use words of Ansel Adams on page 193 of his autobiography, this site is my "aggressive personal opinion," and not a "logical presentation of fact."
But for those that don't know how much Male Bovine Excrement is on his site they can be conned into buying unsuitable gear or making dumb mistakes.

KR is mocked for good reasons. See: Photographic Humour - Jokes - Page 3

07-26-2015, 04:56 AM   #69
Loyal Site Supporter
Fat Albert's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 960
QuoteOriginally posted by CypherOz Quote
KR is mocked for good reasons. See: Photographic Humour - Jokes - Page 3
Haha!


Ken Rockwell

Ken Rockwell's camera has similar settings to ours, except his are: P[erfect] Av[Awesome Priority Tv[Totally Awesome Priority] M[ajestic]
Ken Rockwell doesn't color correct. He adjusts your world to match his.
Ken Rockwell doesn't adjust his DOF, he changes space-time.
Circle of confusion? You might be confused. Ken Rockwell never is.
Ken Rockwell doesn't wait for the light when he shoots a landscape - the light waits for him.
Ken Rockwell never flips his camera in portrait position, he flips the earth
Ken Rockwell is the only person to have photographed Jesus; unfortunately he ran out of film and had to use a piece of cloth instead.
Before Nikon or Canon releases a camera they go to Ken and they ask him to test them, the best cameras get a Nikon sticker and the less good get a Canon sticker
Rockwellian policy isn't doublethink - Ken doesn't even need to think once
Ken Rockwell doesn't use flash ever since the Nagasaki incident.
Only Ken Rockwell can take pictures of Ken Rockwell; everyone else would just get their film overexposed by the light of his genius
Ken Rockwell wanted something to distract the lesser photographers, and lo, there were ducks.
Ken Rockwell is the only one who can take self-portraits of you
Ken Rockwell's nudes were fully clothed at the time of exposure
Ken Rockwell once designed a zoom lens. You know it as the Hubble SpaceTelescope.
When Ken unpacks his CF card, it already has masterpieces on it.
Rockwell portraits are so lifelike, they have to pay taxes
Ken Rockwell spells point-and-shoot "h-a-s-s-e-l-b-l-a-d"
Ken Rockwell's digital files consist of 0's, 1's AND 2's.
Ken Rockwell never focus, everything moves into his DoF
Ken Rockwell's shots are so perfect, Adobe redesigned photoshop for him: all it consists of is a close button.
The term tripod was coined after Ken Rockwell's silhouette
Ken Rockwell never produces awful work, only work too advanced for the viewer
A certain brand of high-end cameras was named after people noticed the quality was a lot "like a" Rockwell
Ken Rockwell isn't the Chuck Norris of photography; Chuck Norris is the Ken Rockwell of martial arts.
Ken Rockwell never starts, he continues.
07-26-2015, 01:08 PM - 1 Like   #70
Loyal Site Supporter
Mikesul's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 2,636
I have only looked at his site a couple times but I think this obsession with bashing him is silly. The disclaimer posted a couple of messages back seems clear enough. Just ignore his site. There are much more offensive and dangerous sites on the web.
07-27-2015, 04:58 AM - 1 Like   #71
Pentaxian
bdery's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Quebec city, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,798
QuoteOriginally posted by starbase218 Quote
Maybe, but that doesn't mean he's wrong, does it?
Doesn't make him right.

QuoteOriginally posted by starbase218 Quote
It may be the world's best - for him. If he knows what is important to him he can make that choice well.
Evidence suggests that Mr. Rockwell is a fanboy who doesn't let facts get in the way of his opinions.
07-27-2015, 11:27 AM   #72
Veteran Member
starbase218's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe
Posts: 1,110
Perhaps you are all right and he is a biased fanboy etc etc etc. Then this is probably not the topic for me anymore. I can't get myself to worry about what someone else says about the brand of cameras I use. I can do more useful things with my time.
07-27-2015, 01:51 PM   #73
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 8,891
The blogging equivalent of a shock jock. Does anyone actually take him seriously?
07-27-2015, 03:18 PM   #74
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,018
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
The blogging equivalent of a shock jock. Does anyone actually take him seriously?
That's probably the issue. There are some people who really do take him seriously. I know many years ago I really did read him and thought that he must be an awesome photographer because he seemed to have strong opinions about everything and talked about gear that I had never even seen.

Flash forward and Rockwell has not changed much at all. Still the same brash manner and strong opinions, but what bothers me any more is not the manner in which the opinions are stated (the way you generate clicks on the internet is with hyperbole), but the fact that his opinions don't seem to have much thought behind them.
07-27-2015, 03:55 PM   #75
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Blue Ridge Escarpment, North Carolina, US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,364
QuoteOriginally posted by starbase218 Quote
But if there is no fast focusing glass available for a body, it's hardly relevant how fast the body can focus, right? I'm not talking science here, I'm talking end-result pragmatism.

OTOH things may be better with DC glass. I have no such glass, so I don't know.
K5/K-3 with Sigma EX 50-150 II might be a revelation for you. Even with a K-01 it's a blast.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
base, camera, cameras, canikon, canon, color, dslr, echo, film, ii, images, k-3, k3, ken rockwell, nikon, pentax, pentax k-3, quality, review, star, time, tone
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is Ken Rockwell a troll? Fat Albert Photographic Industry and Professionals 38 03-17-2014 06:37 AM
Ken Rockwell is Wrong atlnq9 Pentax Medium Format 153 02-24-2014 09:44 AM
Ken Rockwell The film evangelist Lambda_drive Photographic Industry and Professionals 42 12-04-2011 01:24 PM
Taking on Ken Rockwell (another animation) eddie1960 General Talk 17 07-13-2011 06:46 PM
Ken Rockwell Facts sebberry General Talk 15 02-24-2010 12:16 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:50 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top